End of the Year Issue
By Maia Zasler
Reciprocal sounds from a boisterously anticipatory audience scratch at my ear. “Walls work…” reverberates between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. I believe I’ve heard it somewhere before.
…
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former United States President Donald Trump seem to have cultivated a symbiotic relationship, one that has had poisonous consequences for their constituents and for the rest of the globe.
Although the U.S. and Israel differ immensely in their histories and inceptions, their population sizes and geographic territory, and their production and trade capacities, the countries’ political trajectories in the last couple of decades have converged. The rise of Netanyahu and the rapid popularization of Trump’s political doctrine and animated persona generate legitimate concerns for the future of modern democracies, for the efficacy of present-day political parties, and for the capacity that geopolitical conflicts may still be addressed. These two politicians are almost mirrored images of one another, employing nearly identical rhetoric at times, supporting one another in a perverse game of political strategy fueled by gall and greed.
Netanyahu gained traction in the Israeli parliament—the Knesset—in 1993, when he was appointed Leader of the Opposition, the Likud party. He is currently in his third term as Prime Minister. His cumulative 16 years of public service have, at this point in time, amounted to just 15 percent of Israelis supporting him retaining his position following the current war in Gaza, according to a recent poll by Reuters. Despite this career objectively piling up to be, in large part, a political failure, Trump—a former businessman who was elected the 45th President of the U.S. in 2016—remains committed to modeling Netanyahu’s behavior and capitalizing on the xenophobic, right-wing extremist politics Netanyahu helped trailblaze.
They both exist in contradiction, spending much of their charismatic capital on convincing the public of their brilliance. They insist on being the sole saviors of their respective nations, playing on fears and stereotypes to justify discriminatory policies, whether it be blurring separation of powers or espousing expansionist narratives. The pair have been known to claim “fake news,” to violate traditional political norms, and to employ islamophobia in both their speeches and policy. Trump’s ban of nationals emigrating from several Muslim / Arab countries proves to be a salient example.
Netanyahu and Trump have been champions of dividing their parties and governments. Last year, Netanyahu’s plan for a complete judicial overhaul disrupted and divided Israeli society for more than nine months. With support from religious and far-right party members, Netanyahu was able to impose significant curtails on Israel’s judges and courts, consolidating his own power and undermining a fundamental tenet of the liberal democratic system: separation of powers.
Trump has left his own mark on the American judicial branch, appointing three of the nine Supreme Court justices currently serving. This proportion is staggering, particularly so for a president who did not win the American popular vote. In fact, in his time as president, he did not once receive above a 50 percent approval rating (reaching 49 percent, at its highest). This calls for concern as the ideological justices that Trump selected—who serve life terms interpreting the highest laws of the land—do not hold the confidence of the American public. As it relates to dividing his own party, one must first understand that Trump’s ascension in the political world was largely in part due to a particular voter base, one who was comforted by an “outsider,” a man who set himself apart from the corrupt Washington elites. Thus, “trumpism” differed from conservatism, and following Trump’s term as president, the Republican party was left to salvage the pieces scattered about in part due to this inherent difference, to scramble to figure out ways to gain seats in the House and the Senate, to maintain relevance in a country historically Republican voters would go on to condemn Trump’s ways. The GOP was—and still remains—lost, diverging focuses leading to the spouting of nonsense on social issues and, more dangerously, the instituting of bans on abortion, the targeting of transgender youth, and the banning of books.
Both Netanyahu and Trump are facing ongoing corruption charges—colloquially dubbed “witch hunts,” thanks to Trump’s language precedent. Amidst the ongoing war in Gaza, Netanyahu’s corruption trial persists, adding a sour note to an already stale leadership streak. He has been accused of bribery, fraud, and breaching of trust—all charges that he continues to deny. Trump, on the other hand, faces a whopping 91 felony counts including but not limited to charges of fraud, defamation, sexual assault, and election subversion. The question as to which states will allow Trump’s name on the ballot, or if his theoretical election in November would even be valid, remains unanswered. However, it is clear that his popularity surges: despite a lack of participation in Republican primary debates, he stays far ahead in the polls.
One may speculate that the similarities between Netanyahu and Trump remain coincidental, rather than correlated or contextual. Analyzing Netanyahu’s appeal to a growing religious population and settlement enthusiasts, or his strategy in dismissing slowly accumulating minor charges alleging bribery as an excuse to crack down on his country’s judiciary may not, at first glance, provide insight into American democracy post-Trump… not to mention the 2024 presidential election. Conversely, Trump’s unfiltered commentary and, for a time, uninhibited social media posting, or his refusal to participate in the Paris Agreement and general denial of the climate crisis may not evoke thoughts of the leader of a country halfway across the world. But, Netanyahu and Trump are inextricably linked. Beyond the relationship they forged and their shared rhetoric, the two fit into a larger pattern of populist leadership. The company they keep, from Vladimir Putin in Russia to Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, illustrates a growing, global web of cult of personality leadership. Upon a close analysis, it is clear that their political careers highlight the corrosion of 21st century democracies.
Perhaps all that more importantly, though, there exists a glaring difference between Netanyahu and Trump. Trump’s trajectory is solidified. Netanyahu still has a shot at a semblance of redemption. The irony cannot be lost; Trump has, to this date, been a single-term president. Netanyahu has held office as Prime Minister for more than a decade. But, the fact remains. Trump’s political legacy is an embarrassing, shameful one. He desecrated the respect for one of the most powerful political positions in the Global North. He fueled divides between Americans, on racial lines yes, but also purely on political orientation. The “all-or-nothing” mentality is a central characteristic of populist leadership; one must fully rally behind this irrational, charismatic spokesperson and part-time policy maker… or else why bother? Netanyahu is less abrasive than Trump. For many years, his rhetoric was easier to swallow, more likely to convince opposition of his “rightness.” Much like Trump, his modus operandi has been to conduct business-as-usual, ignoring—or exacerbating—fundamental issues that threaten the fabric of society. For Trump, this was racial discrimination, climate change, and an increasing urban versus rural divide. For Netanyahu, climate change has indeed been a part of the issue, but, more pertinently, it has been the Israel-Palestine conflict. Following the massacre on October 7, the dismal situation could no longer be ignored. Israelis remain shocked and angry. Many are angry at Netanyahu for failing them, for prolonging the war in Gaza, and for failing to make significant militaristic advantages and freeing hostages. If Netanyahu alters his strategy, if he chooses his people and humanitarian action as opposed to desperately attempting to extend his political career, he can gain more control over his legacy. He has the chance to set a different precedent, to diverge from populist leaders past and present. Maybe then there will be hope for change, and opportunity for further push back, for criticism.
Hatred is cultivated, not innate. We are complicit in inaction when we are paralyzed by fear, and we cannot allow populism to paralyze us. A future where Netanyahu stays in office, or where Trump is re-elected, is not a sustainable one. But, the critical reflection must not stop there. What matters most, now, is looking for avenues forward. Apologies for the past can only go so far in rectifying action, and serves as an impediment for re-building democracy and repairing public trust. We should not look at the similarities between Netanyahu and Trump or other populist leaders with despair, but rather with reassurance of understanding, with a drive to draw up a blueprint for better leadership.